CAN WE TALK? HOW GEOSCIENTISTS CAN DELIVER UNPOPULAR MESSAGES

Geoscientists may be involved with delivering information that is poorly understood, unpopular, or both. Natural-resource exploitation, land-use decisions, climate change, and natural hazards require a combination of subject-matter knowledge, audience identification, and the ability to translate technical information for a largely non-technical audience.

The first step is to realize that simply providing objective information is not only insufficient, but that the presenter’s objectivity itself may be questioned. Source credibility is determined by a combination of audience, the presenter’s organization, and the individual presenter - all of which are subjective. The second step is to identify the intended audience(s), with the potential trap of perceiving a cohesive “community” where none exists. Community assessment includes not only audience characterization, but identifying the most effective means of spreading the message. This is more than just choosing the best medium; it is also recognizing what makes an issue “important,” and identifying and reaching key members who can influence message transmission and acceptance. This can be particularly challenging when community concern is high but actual hazards are low: understanding the difference between supporting an underlying message of “don’t worry,” and actually saying it can be the difference between successful communication and a bigger problem. Finally, admitting and explaining uncertainty can enhance credibility and even help gain acceptance.